Creation doesn't mean perfection

Darwinist apologists continue to misrepresent ID and creationist based thinking. Is it because they don't know any better? Or is it because they want to spread disinformation?

Quotes and comments;

A. 'John Avise in PNAS wrote a paper labeling ID as “religious creationism” but then used religious arguments in a science journal to attack it.

"Intelligent design (ID)—the latest incarnation of religious creationism—posits that complex biological features did not accrue gradually via natural evolutionary forces but, instead, were crafted ex nihilo by a cognitive agent. Yet, many complex biological traits are gratuitously complicated, function poorly, and debilitate their bearers." [1.]

- The trouble with critics of 'creationism' is that they don't read the material. A very high percentage of them are utterly ignorant of the subject they critique. They're either afraid to read the material, or are so arrogant they don't think they need to. The objections Avise rises have been answered over and over again... but apparently he doesn't realize this. (Has the man ever read Cornelius Hunter? Has he read any creationist author?)

Critics like Avise make the same mistakes over and over. (Can they really be mistakes by now?) A prime 'mistake' they make is to ignore the the biblical doctrine of the Fall. Even if you take the position that the Fall had no physical effects on the creation apart from Adam and Eve, there is still thousands of years of genetic decay to deal with. A perfect creation six thousand years ago obviously would not be perfect today. (No creationist denies genetic mutation.) Avise has no valid basis for saying anything is 'gratuitiously' complicated. This makes no sense. An artist creates as he sees fit. It makes no sense for a critic to say some element is 'gratuitous'. At best this is an argument from silence. i.e. 'as far as I can tell, this appears to be unnecessary.'

After six thousand years one would expect that some things would not function as well as they once did. (Despite claims like this made by darwinists, the animal world seems to function beautifully as far as I can tell.) Mutations have taken their toll over the millenia. I don't see anyone who denies this. No creationist I know of claims that things are perfect now. Biblical creationists claim that all creatures were perfect once (ie. when first created) but they don't claim they're perfect now. A key christian doctrine is that this is a fallen world. Has Mr. Avise never heard this?

Mr. Avise talks about evolutionary forces. Forces eh? This sounds like the science of Star Wars. I don't consider speculation about vague 'forces' to be scientific. (It's far more scientific to refer to intelligence as a source of information than it is to rely on some non-personal, reified force or forces.) What is this force anyway? No force can create specified complex information.

B. ''Furthermore, such dysfunctional traits abound not only in the phenotypes but inside the genomes of eukaryotic species."

- Contra Mr. Avise, nothing can be 'dysfunctional' in evolution. If there is no goal there can be no failure to realize a goal. Mr. Avise is smuggling teleology into evolutionary theory.

C. "Here, I highlight several outlandish features of the human genome that defy notions of ID by a caring cognitive agent."

- Does mr. Avise have a clue what he's talking about. ID doesn't specify a 'caring cognitive agent'. If he doesn't know that much he's not qualified to comment on ID.

He doesn't seem to realize that if he's going to brand x as 'outlandish' he has to have a standard for doing so. His problem is that e. theory gives him no such standard. There is no basis for a materialist to say x is outlandish. (He doesn't seem to understand the implications of his own worldview.)

D. "Gross imperfection at the molecular level presents a conundrum for the traditional paradigms of natural theology as well as for recent assertions of ID, but it is consistent with the notion of nonsentient contrivance by evolutionary forces.

- I can only laugh when I read Darwinists attempting to do theology. Contra Mr. Avise, imperfection presents no problem for traditional Christian theology. I have no idea where he gets this idea. ("The whole creation moans in travail," says the apostle Paul... as it awaits its perfection in the new heavens and earth.) I don't think 'imperfection' presents a problem for ID either. [see above]

A materialist has no basis for talking about imperfection as he has no standard of perfection. (Doesn't he realize this?) Perfection is a meaningless concept in e. theory; this makes imperfection a meaningless concept as well. (This makes the adjective 'gross' utterly pointless; Avise has no standard of perfection, thus no basis for a scale of imperfection.)

Notes;
1. Media Continues to Denounce ID, Crown Darwin Creation/Evolution Headlines 05/14/2010
May 14, 2010 — The news media and journals continue to publish one-sided statements against intelligent design (ID) – even though scientific evidence continues to support design on many fronts.'
2. Some creationists don't even make the claim all creatures were once perfect. (I don't think ID advocates do, and theistic evolutionists don't; if you call them creationists.)
3. 'John Avise in PNAS wrote a paper labeling ID as “religious creationism” but then used religious arguments in a science journal to attack it: i.e., “God wouldn’t make the world this way” [1.]
- Cornelius Hunter wrote a couple books dealing with this issue. I recommend them to Mr. Avise. His thesis is that the basic arguments Charles Darwin used to promote 'his' theory of evolution were basically arguments showing Christian doctrine and ideas were false; and that since they were false evolution must be true.
- Apparently Charles Darwin is Mr. Avise's idea of a great theologian.
4. Apparently tenure has so corrupted modern academia that it's considered acceptable for 'scholars' to write about things they know nothing about.